Williamson v. Herseth

104 N.W.2d 473, 78 S.D. 476, 1960 S.D. LEXIS 37
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 18, 1960
DocketFile No. 972
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 104 N.W.2d 473 (Williamson v. Herseth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williamson v. Herseth, 104 N.W.2d 473, 78 S.D. 476, 1960 S.D. LEXIS 37 (S.D. 1960).

Opinion

DANDY, Circuit Judge.

Charges made against Alan Williamson as Unemployment Compensation Commissioner [477]*477were heard before the Governor pursuant to SDC 1960 Supp. 17.0803-3. Following such -hearing, but before any official action had been taken by the Governor, Williamson obtained an Alternative Writ of Prohibition from the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in Hughes County. By such writ the Governor was restrained from proceeding further with the removal of Williamson from office. On the return day the Trial Court, on the authority of In re Petition of Mee, 45 S.D. 303, 187 N.W. 540, declared itself to be without power to stay proceedings pending appeal and entered an order quashing and dismissing such writ. This appeal is from such order. No application was made to this Court for the preservation of the status quo. Thereafter the Governor formally removed Williamson from office and appointed bis successor, who has duly qualified. Additionally, the term of -office for which Williamson was appointed expired during the pendency of this appeal.

What was written by the Supreme Court of the United States in Jones v. Montague, 194 U.S. 147, 24 S.Ct. 611, 612, 48 L.Ed. 913, is explanatory of the action which must be taken here:

“The case before us is one in prohibition. * * * the thing sought to be prohibited -has been done, and cannot be undone by any order of court. * * *any adjudication which this court might make would be only an ineffectual decision of the question whether or not these petitioners were wronged by what has been ful-ly accomplished. Under those circumstances there is nothing but a moot case remaining, and the motion to dismiss must be sustained.”

The motion herein to dismiss the appeal is granted.

All the Judges concur. BANDY, Circuit Judge, sitting for SMITH, J., disqualified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cummings v. Mickelson
495 N.W.2d 493 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 N.W.2d 473, 78 S.D. 476, 1960 S.D. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-herseth-sd-1960.